Their results were published in Nature magazine in the 50's. You can probably find it in a large library. Again, this is basic stuff - common knowledge that is disseminated in high school biology class.

Then it should be easy for you to supply a reference to "They realized (and publicized) that there is no chemical force that influences the sequence of the 4 bases on the helix. It is completely independent of chemistry" rather than "go to the library". At least a citation of the actual paper and a link to the abstract (see this search.. which one do you mean?)

But since it's so widely disseminated you should be able to provide a link to some more accessible source.

Since you are obviously just parroting cr*p you've gleaned from other ignorant creationsits, you won't do either.

{ABE}

The code found in the nucleic acid base-pairs is pure information, TRANSMITTED BY MEANS OF CHEMISTRY. I was wrong to suggest that chemistry is not involved. My mistake.

So you acknowledge that "...there is no chemical force that influences the sequence of the 4 bases on the helix. It is completely independent of chemistry" is BS, while at the same time saying it's "...basic stuff - common knowledge that is disseminated in high school biology class". Boy are you confused.

OK, moving on, define "pure information" and demonstrate that DNA contains it and that no natural process can produce it. As if...

Their results were published in Nature magazine in the 50's. You can probably find it in a large library. Again, this is basic stuff - common knowledge that is disseminated in high school biology class.

That's a lot of words to say "no".

And Chicks publications are not disseminated in high school biology. Nor is the "knowledge" you are claiming common. If it was, you could easily point to it.

The code found in the nucleic acid base-pairs is pure information, TRANSMITTED BY MEANS OF CHEMISTRY.

But its no more pure information than the formation of salt from sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid that is transmitted by means of chemistry.

NaOH + HCl --> NaCl + H2O

If that doesn't elicit the need for a code writer then neither should DNA.

And really, how can something be pure information when it is also a string of chemicals?

Even the contents of this message isn't pure information, as its made up of pixels on your screen.

They realized (and publicized) that there is no chemical force that influences the sequence of the 4 bases on the helix.

Right, the sequence is confined to what works. If it doesn't work, it can't get replicated... so then it doesn't exist.If it works, it can replicate, and then it exists.

Yet, the code is there, and it produced life. If not by chemical forces, how did the code get there?

Now you're asking a different question.

First you're talking about the sequencing alone... and when talking about the sequencing alone, you're right... that is not influenced by chemical forces... that's just whatever works.But now you're asking how the sequence was formed ("how did the code get there?").

The answer is, of course, that the sequence was formed through the chemical forces that always form any and all organic chemicals when the conditions are present.

The order or specific sequencing is not governed by chemical forces... that's governed by what can work by replicating itself.However, they're still all bonded through chemical forces. The same way all molecules are formed.

I submit that the inference to the best explanation is that a designing intelligence was necessary.

In order to submit that a designing intelligence was necessary, you'll have to support a reason why a designing intelligence would be necessary beyond "I don't understand chemistry."

And the whining "God of the Gaps" is not an argument. It shows that you have been presented with a situation that can best be explained by positing a creator. When Darwinists have no response, they whine "You used God-Of-The-Gaps"

So, we'll add the phrase "God of the Gaps" to the list of things you don't understand, then.

The calculation was intended to prove that the odds against the Ribonuclease protein forming without intelligent intervention are so long that one must infer the intervention of an intelligence. Since science does not claim that the protein formed in one fell swoop, a calculation showing the odds against it coming together in one fell swoop have nothing to do with the claim that intelligence is not involved.

This idea is not particularly confusing. If you are unable to follow this line of reasoning, it's unlikely you will be able to follow much of anything that anyone says here.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung

It's the FAITH STATEMENT that 'everything came about by some form of evolutionary process' that blinds Darwinists to the possibility of life being created in 'one fell swoop'.

There is a very huge difference between a protein having evolved and having it "created in 'one fell swoop'." For one thing, no modern protein ever gets "created in 'one fell swoop'", but rather it is produced by natural biological processes. Evolution examines what life clearly does as we have directly observed over multiple generations. We have observed organisms producing modern proteins, whereas we have never seen modern proteins being "created in 'one fell swoop'". Evolution deals with what actually happens, whereas your model of a modern protein being "created in 'one fell swoop'" simply does not happen.

Furthermore, the probability calculations for the two models are completely different and produce completely different results. The methods of selection are called "single-step selection" and "cumulative selection" and are presented and discussed in Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker. In the third chapter he presents his WEASEL program that tests cumulative selection. While he does not present the code (it was in BASIC), I wrote my own example based on his description -- others have described mine as the most faithful implementation of what Dawkins described -- which I called MONKEY; see my web page, MONKEY.

Your "created in 'one fell swoop'" model uses single-step selection in which you try to get the result you want in one single step and when that fails you start over completely from scratch. The probability of this succeeding is so small that if you made a million trials per second, it would take about 195 trillion years to have one chance in a million of succeeding. The age of the universe is only about 13 billion years, so it would take about 10,000 times the age of the universe for single-step selection to have one chance in a million of working. Truly abysmal. The only way for single-step selection to work would be supernatural intervention.

But that is not how life works and evolution describes and depends on how life actually works. Evolution uses cumulative selection, in which several copies (AKA "offspring") are generated which are very much like, though slightly different from, their parents. Then the best of those copies are used to generate the next generation of copies. Instead of always starting from scratch, each generation uses its parents as the new starting point. Depending on various factors, this method succeeds within minutes and even seconds.

I performed a mathematical analysis of the two processes, which my MONKEY page links to (MONKEY PROBABILITIES (MPROBS):). With cumulative selection, the only way for it to fail is for each and every copy of each and every generation to fail to advance towards the goal. It turns out that the probability of failure with cumulative selection becomes extremely low, such that success becomes virtually inevitable.

Of course, if you had bothered to review the responses to BoredomSetsIn's OP, then you would have already learned all that. Instead, you ignored the content of the thread and ended up making the same stupid mistakes that BoredomSetsIn had made. While it is important to be able to learn from our own mistakes, it is far more important to learn from other people's mistakes. You missed your chance.

And the whining "God of the Gaps" is not an argument. It shows that you have been presented with a situation that can best be explained by positing a creator. When Darwinists have no response, they whine "You used God-Of-The-Gaps".

No, that is not what "God of the Gaps" is. You really do need to know what "God of the Gaps" is, because that is what ID and most of "creation science" based themselves on.

When you don't know something, Wikipedia is a good place to start researching it. At God of the gaps:

quote:God of the gaps is a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence. Some use the phrase to refer to a form of the argument from ignorance fallacy.

It's going to take me quite a few years to get to even trying to start understanding the basics of anything you're talking about. Doing a beginner's course in genetics, but well, still don't know much. Thank you very, very much for the free education (have to revisit the basics on everything, from genes to biochem to organic chem to statistics to, well, everything.)!

This poster made two posts and did not return. It is disingenuous to suggest he was 'got rid of' by the persons you were addressing.

I think you are asking interesting questions and I'm enjoying the discourse generated by your posts.

There are few enough people on this board who challenge ToE so I hope you can both stay and rise above making such statements.

All the best.

Edited by Larni, : DVD extras

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134